1993 Supreme(Bom) 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
B.U. Wahane, J.
Amar Bahadursingh s/o Girijashingh Kushwaha ... Petitioner.
Versus
T.D. Wasnik, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara and others ... Respondents.
Contempt Petition No. 5 of 1993, decided on 13/14-9-1993.
Advocates appeared :
Paliwal, for the petitioner.
Jibhakate, for the respondent No. 1.
A.M. Badar, Honarary Assistant to Govt. Pleader, for respondent Nos. 2 3.
Pradip Marpakwar, for the respondent No. 4.
B.P. Dharmadhikari, for the respondent No. 5.

Headnote:CONTEMPT

       Set Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 10 and 13.

       CONTEMPT OF COURT

       See Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12.

       See Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 71.

       CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971

       Section 2-See Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

       Section 2-Contempt-Contemner educational officer- Retired school headmaster prematurely-Order stayed by lower Court.

       Direction issued to allow petitioner to work a School Headmaster with administrative and financial powers-Contemner passed orders to continue services of Incharge Headmaster overlooking fact that the petitioner already working as Headmaster-From pay bills petitioners name and signature scored out by that and same signed by incharge Headmaster- Thus from exercising administrative and financial powers vested in him petitioner restrained-Contemners action held wilful, deliberate and in clear disregard of orders of Courts and amounted to Civil contempt.

       Section 2-Contempt of Courts - Considerations for dropping of proceedings-Permission of private settlement and withdrawal of contempt petitions negate provisions of Act and defeat the object-Contempt law or its prevent interference with administration of justice and maintaining hononr and dignity of Court.

       The law on the Contempt of Court is founded entirely on public policy.

       It is not there to protect the private rights of parties to a litigation or prosecution. It is there to prevent interference with the administration of justice and maintain honour and dignity and prevent insults to the Courts/Judges the members of the Temple of Justice. It should be emphasized that the proceedings in contempt by very nature are not nor can be permitted to be initiated nor our jurisdiction involved to settle or satisfy the sense of private injury. From this follows that one this Court is seized of the matter with regard to contempt and the rule is issued, it must be made clear for all purposes that desire of the private party to continue or not to continue such proceedings is insignificant and is totally irrelevant. Thus, the process once began cannot be recalled by private arrangements and settlement. After initiation, the matter is between the Court and the contemner. Purpose of proceeding in contempt is mainly to uphold the dignity of the Court and in still confidence in the mind of the people about the sanctity of orders by the Courts of Justice. Accepting the private settlement between the parties after the contempt notice is issued to the parties and thereby to drop the contempt proceeding, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be nugatory and the object would stand defeated and frustrated if the private negotiations of such settlements and eventual withdrawals of the petitions are permitted. There exists clearly high principle of public policy behind the initiation of such proceedings involving public interest in the matters of administration of justice.

       Sections 10 and 13-Contempt-Proceedings for.

       As matter between Court and contemner, it can not be recalled by private arrangements and settlement-Unconditional apology-No ground for automatic dropping of-Court to consider and scrutinise nature of contempt-In case of grave and serious contempt apology cannot be accepted by Court.

       The law on the contempt of Court is founded entirely on public policy.

       It is not there to protect the private rights of parties to litigation or prosecution. It is therefore to prevent interference with the administration of justice and to maintain honour and dignity and prevent insults to the Courts/Judges the members of the Temple of Justice. It should be emphasised that the proceedings in contempt by very nature are not nor can be permitted to be initiated nor jurisdiction involved to settle or satisfy the sense of private injury. From this follows that once this Court is seized of the matter with regard to contempt and the rule is issued it must be made clear for all purposes that desire of the private party to continue or not to continue such proceedings is insignificant and is totally irrelevant. Thus the process once began cannot be recalled by private arrangements and settlement. After initiation, the matter in between the Court and the contemner purpose of proceeding in contempt is mainly to uphold the dignity of the Court and instill confidence m the mind of the people about the sanctity of orders by the Courts of Justice. Accepting the private settlement between the parties after the contempt notice is issued to the parties and thereby to drop the contempt proceeding, the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 would be nugatory and the object would stand defeated and frustrated if the private negotiations of such settlements and eventual withdrawals of the petitions are permitted. There exists clearly high principle of public policy behind the initiation of such proceedings involving public interest in the matters of administration of justice.

       There cannot be any rigid rule that every contempt proceeding should be dropped as soon as an unconditional apology is tendered. The very nature of the judicial function makes Judges sympathetic and responsive. However, every thing will depend upon the facts of each case. If the contempt is of a technical type or if the contempt can be termed as not serious or grave, the Court is likely to accept the apology. In other cases mere apology would not do. So, before considering the various circumstances, the Court should consider and scrutinise the nature of contempt.

       The words used are not indicative of remote and contrition. Defence set up found false. All the while the respondent No. 1 was justifying his conduct. According to High Court, the apology appears to be a paper apology. Expression of do not should come from the heart and not pen. The respondent No. 1 tendered apology to avoid rigour of law. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the contempt the High Court not accepted apology tendered.

       Section 12-Contempt of Court- Tendering of apology-Contempts unconditional apology sufficient to drop proceedings-Relevant facts-Duty of Court.

       The apology is not a weapon of defence forged to purge the guilt under all circumstances nor can it be allowed to operate as a universal penacea. Unconditional apology would be a circumstance for showing leniency in quantum of punishment.

       There cannot be any rigid rule that every contempt proceeding should be dropped as soon as an unconditional apology is tendered. The very nature of the judicial function makes Judges sympathetic and responsive. However every thing will depend upon the facts of each case. If the contempt is of a technical type or if the contempt can be termed as not serious or grave, the Court is likely to accept the apology. In other cases, mere apology would not do. So, before considering the various circumstances, the Court should consider and scrutinise the nature of contempt.

       Section 12-Court-Contempt of.

       Unconditional apology to be given at earliest opportunity so as for being a genuine one - Securing contemners attendance only after issuing of bailable warrants proving his disregard for Court orders-Tendering of paper apology for avoiding rigorous of law not acceptable.

       Section 17-Contempt of Court-Procedure for-Third partys intention not permissible-No provision of addition of parties.

       The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Rules framed by the High Court do not provide for intervention by the third parties. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as to addition of parties do not arise in the contempt matter which is entirely between the Court and the contemner. If other persons or third parties are allowed to intervene in the proceedings, then it will seriously affect the contempt proceedings. The presence of the intervenors in a given situation may lead to the generation of heat as well as arming for and against the contemners with lethal weapons which would make the Court involved more than what is necessary in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act.